Segmentation faults are typically emitted by the OS when an application tries to access memory which is not in the application's process space. A common cause is where code uses an uninitialized address & when blindly using the ill-defined value goes outside of the process' bounds. In short, most causes for this error are coding mistakes.

As conjecture, your dmesg(8) output indicates you only have 1GB of RAM. It may be that most using this editor do so on systems with more memory. With more memory comes less swapping of memory pages. I suspect that the segmentation fault was exacerbated by the lack of memory, however, I can only guess without recompiling the source with debug information & attempting to use this editor in a similar environment as yours.

Posting to the ports@ mailing list may not generate much interest -- especially given that the developers are in the middle of stablizing the entire ports tree in anticipation of the tagging of OpenBSD 4.9. However, posting a PR would be good on your part. Information on submitting bug reports can be found at the following:

It should be noted that ports problems should not be sent using sendbug(1) or to bugs@, send them to ports@ only.

You may also want to contact the developers of this software, although they may require you to do things that are beyond the realm of "supported".. i.e: obtaining the latest source code and building it manually, which is difficult and error prone.

Thank you for your answers. I just don't understand something. I opened 14 different html tabs in bluefish, edited them saved them, all this many times without crashing. The only time I get a crash, is when I open a .css file...

As for the memory, I use Openbox. From top I get that I have 850-870M free memory every time... I don't know what's happening.

Just a shot in the dark, but you aren't mixing openbsd flavors, are you? I've seen packages act weird (segfaults and such, like you describe) when RELEASE packages are installed on CURRENT or somesuch.

...which may indicate that CSS files go through a different code path than other HTML files, but this is simply a guess.

I have Bluefish in my desktop (Linux distro there) and no problems yet with any kind of files.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocket357

Just a shot in the dark, but you aren't mixing openbsd flavors, are you? I've seen packages act weird (segfaults and such, like you describe) when RELEASE packages are installed on CURRENT or somesuch.

What's your PKG_PATH, if it's set?

That's the first thing I always have in mind for OpenBSD-->never mix flavors. hehe.

However, it should be noted that they claim that it is written as POSIX compliant. This should mean that it can be ported to different platforms more easily as POSIX is considered to denote lowest common denominator compatibility. Unfortunately, just because developers claim POSIX compatibility doesn't mean that the application really is easily ported.

Also of note from Wikipedia is the statement that the current version is 2.0. You should verify what version you have on your Linux installation.

The current version of Bluefish on OpenBSD is 1.0.7 according to OpenPorts:

Why a more recent version has not been ported is probably due to low interest. There are a number of third-party applications in OpenBSD's ports tree which are several versions away from the most current. It's a fact of life.

So while I can empathize with your frustration, you aren't dealing with a situation where an apple (in one environment) can be compared to another apple (in a different environment). I suspect you have a newer version of Bluefish on Linux -- at least newer than the version available on OpenBSD. The behavioral difference between Linux & OpenBSD can most likely be isolated to the following two reasons:

Two different code versions.

Two different platforms. The Linux source base still has to be modified to run on OpenBSD. Either a bug was introduced in the porting effort, or the bug existed on Linux too, but was fixed in a later revision.

So perhaps this may explain why the same application behaves differently on the two platforms.